9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g imposition of penalty. 2.Dr.S.Krishnanandh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner has been denied the opportunity of cross examination of the departmental officers, which is very crucial to the petitioner's case. Further, it is submitted that bills of entry impugned in the show cause notice range from 18.01.2011 to 26.11.2014. The self-assessment procedure was introduced into the Customs Act w.e.f., 08.04.2011 vide Finance Act 2011 and therefore, prior to 08.04.2011, all bills of entry were assessed by the proper officer of customs as mandated by Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 prior to its amendment. The petitioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of Delhi in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd., & Ors vs. UOI [2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del)], wherein it was held that the Additional Director General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), is not the proper officer for demand of duty in terms of the said Section. It is further submitted that the respondent had referred to the decision of the High Court of Kerala in the case of N.S.Mahesh vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin [2016 (331) ELT 402 (Ker.)] for denying the opportunity of cross examination of the officers of the Customs. It is submitted that though the said Writ Petition was dismissed, another petitioner and co-noticee in the very same show cause notice one Rejie Cherian filed another Writ Petition before the High Court of Kerala for the very ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2018, informed the counsel for the petitioner that the request for cross examination was denied by the Commissioner by communication dated 21.02.2017. Apart from other things it is stated that no statements were recorded from the officers who reassessed/verified, audited and examined the goods impugned and that they have discharged the functions in their official capacity based on the documents provided by the importer. The respondent referred to the decision of the High Court of Kerala in the case of N.S.Mahesh (supra). Thus, the respondent informed the counsel for the petitioner that the Adjudicating Authority has denied the opportunity of cross examination with sound reasons and in the same letter, intimation of personal hearing was giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been rejected by the authority, not once, but twice. The rejections have been by speaking orders. More importantly all the officers have discharged their official function and the department has specifically stated that they have not recorded any statement from the officers so as to make them available for cross examination, as if they have rendered a personal opinion in the matter. I am prima facie in agreement with the stand taken by the respondent stating that the officers having discharged their official duty, that too, based upon the documents which were filed by the importer cannot be subjected to cross examination at the instance of the importer. At best, the importer can place materials before the Adjudicating Authority to establis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
